Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

I Sued The Sheriff


SteveFord

Recommended Posts

And now Clapton's management has released a statement saying he will not take the case any further -

https://www.whereseric.com/eric-clapton-news/303-german-bootleg-case-statement

 The text -

Given the widespread and often misleading press reports about a recent bootleg case involving a woman in Germany, the following provides clarification to set the record straight.

Germany is one of several countries where sales of unauthorized and usually poor-quality illegal bootleg CDs are rife, which harms both the industry and purchasers of inferior product.  Over a period of more than 10 years the German lawyers appointed by Eric Clapton, and a significant number of other well-known artists and record companies, have successfully pursued thousands of bootleg cases under routine copyright procedures.

It is not the intention to target individuals selling isolated CDs from their own collection, but rather the active bootleggers manufacturing unauthorised copies for sale.  In the case of an individual selling unauthorised items from a personal collection, if following receipt of a “cease and desist” letter the offending items are withdrawn, any costs would be minimal, or might be waived. 

Eric Clapton’s lawyers and management team (rather than Eric personally) identifies if an item offered for sale is illegal, and a declaration confirming that is signed, but thereafter Eric Clapton is not involved in any individual cases, and 95% of the cases are resolved before going to Court. 

This case could have been disposed of quickly at minimal cost, but unfortunately in response to the German lawyers’ first standard letter, the individual’s reply included the line (translation): “feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands”. This triggered the next step in the standard legal procedures, and the Court then made the initial injunction order.

If the individual had complied with the initial letter the costs would have been minimal. Had she explained at the outset the full facts in a simple phone call or letter to the lawyers, any claim might, have been waived, and costs avoided.

However, the individual appointed a lawyer who appealed the injunction decision. The Judge encouraged the individual to withdraw the appeal to save costs, but she proceeded. The appeal failed and she was ordered to pay the costs of the Court and all of the parties. 

However, when the full facts of this particular case came to light and it was clear the individual is not the type of person Eric Clapton, or his record company, wish to target, Eric Clapton decided not to take any further action and does not intend to collect the costs awarded to him by the Court. Also, he hopes the individual will not herself incur any further costs. 

Eric Clapton Management
22nd December 2021

 

 

So give him some credit, eh?   Looks like he's not a **** or a ******.

Happy Xmas and best wishes to all!

Edited by jdgm
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Whitefang said:

There are plenty of pawn shops and thrift shops also selling well aged recorded material.  From vinyl to CDs.  Why then, O wise ones, aren't THEY being considered as "breaching copyright law"?  And if not,, WHY not?   

Because second hand retail is selling things that have already had their ASCAP/BMI dues paid by the original buyer.  A bootleg never did that.  These are simple concepts regarding intellectual property, there is no controversy here at all.

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wanker isn't swinging either way on this one.  They both could have handled it better.

It's not worth going after somebody unless there a certain minimum amount at stake.  That's not just an economic consideration, it's a class thing.  If you make an example of somebody then you have to live with it.  The lady's just a nobody being a dumb-axx.  Clapton's just tone deaf.  I probably would be too if I was treated like royalty my whole career.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And has it been determined that the bootleg contained songs written and published by Clapton but not yet recorded by him, and therefore no "ASCAP/BMI dues" have been paid?  And if not, then where's the copyright infringement?  I mean, if the bootlegged concert was Clapton performing all tunes he's recorded and probably made a crapload of money from already,  gotta wonder why he's b!tching about it.  If he needs money that badly, then perhaps he, or his bigger fans should start a Go fund me page.  [wink]

I feel his only gripe here is with the bootleggers,  and since they'll never be known and found, he should have just let it go.  Or the courts should have told him he's SOL.

Whitefang 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Whitefang said:

And has it been determined that the bootleg contained songs written and published by Clapton but not yet recorded by him, and therefore no "ASCAP/BMI dues" have been paid?  And if not, then where's the copyright infringement?  I mean, if the bootlegged concert was Clapton performing all tunes he's recorded and probably made a crapload of money from already,  gotta wonder why he's b!tching about it.  If he needs money that badly, then perhaps he, or his bigger fans should start a Go fund me page.  [wink]

I feel his only gripe here is with the bootleggers,  and since they'll never be known and found, he should have just let it go.  Or the courts should have told him he's SOL.

Whitefang 

You can not go into a concert, record it, and then sell it for a "profit", no matter how small that profit.  It is up to (a): the venue.  Most do not allow recording in their venues.  (b): The Artist.  Most do not allow taping.  Allmans did.  Dead did.  Quite a few others did.  Most don't.  Bootlegging is bootlegging.  While I agree with the smallness of all of this, it is unfortunate how bad he and they look by going to court over it, they are sending a message to bootleggers in general.  

rct

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never claimed it was OK to go into a concert and record it and then sell copies of that concert for a profit.  But was pointing out that the woman selling an old bootleg wasn't really making what can be construed as a profit, at least enough for Clapton to feel he was being cheated out of a huge chunk of his income.  And of curse, just asking if the recorded material was of tunes he already made more profit from that the lady  would with the asked for $11.  

I agree that in a very technical sense that Clapton might have been within his rights to take some legal action, but he should have gone by the old maxim;

"Just because you can, doesn't always mean you should."  [wink]

Whitefang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Whitefang said:

I never claimed it was OK to go into a concert and record it and then sell copies of that concert for a profit.  But was pointing out that the woman selling an old bootleg wasn't really making what can be construed as a profit, at least enough for Clapton to feel he was being cheated out of a huge chunk of his income.  And of curse, just asking if the recorded material was of tunes he already made more profit from that the lady  would with the asked for $11.  

I agree that in a very technical sense that Clapton might have been within his rights to take some legal action, but he should have gone by the old maxim;

"Just because you can, doesn't always mean you should."  [wink]

Whitefang

I agree with you.

At the same time, you can't pick and pull at each case by case basis if you are trying to make a difference.  In the music industry, bootlegging for money is not cool, not tolerated, and there are laws against it.  You can't say it is ok to speed a little, but not a lot.  You'll have courts full of people contesting tickets that don't define "a little".  You can't say a little bit of bootlegging is ok, especially when you are trying to stop bootlegging for money.  Like lots of things, it's all or nothing.

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many recording artists have spoken out against bootlegging, and the theft of intellectual property. 
Some have taken action. 

In my personal opinion, Eric Clapton is being singled out, at this point in time, simply because of his unpopular opinions recently spoken regarding vaccinations and Government. 

Just my opinion. 

🤫

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sparquelito said:

Many recording artists have spoken out against bootlegging, and the theft of intellectual property. 
Some have taken action. 

In my personal opinion, Eric Clapton is being singled out, at this point in time, simply because of his unpopular opinions recently spoken regarding vaccinations and Government. 

Just my opinion. 

🤫

 

Talk about hitting the nail RIGHT on the head!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, rct said:

I agree with you.

At the same time, you can't pick and pull at each case by case basis if you are trying to make a difference.  In the music industry, bootlegging for money is not cool, not tolerated, and there are laws against it.  You can't say it is ok to speed a little, but not a lot.  You'll have courts full of people contesting tickets that don't define "a little".  You can't say a little bit of bootlegging is ok, especially when you are trying to stop bootlegging for money.  Like lots of things, it's all or nothing.

rct

I get the impression that you're still not getting my point.   Not totally anyway.  The lady in question didn't bootleg anything.  And really, neither did her late husband.  And all this nonsense about Clapton being singled out due to his anti-vaxx stand is just some other addle brained anti-vaxxer using the wrong time and place to vent about something totally irrelevant.   [wink]

Whitefang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sparquelito said:

Many recording artists have spoken out against bootlegging, and the theft of intellectual property. 
Some have taken action. 

In my personal opinion, Eric Clapton is being singled out, at this point in time, simply because of his unpopular opinions recently spoken regarding vaccinations and Government. 

Just my opinion. 

🤫

 

I think he's getting a bunch of pushback because he's personally a deebag, not because of some binary politics.  If your politics are based on poking people in the chest, then you like what the guy has been saying.  I used to think the guy was great, but now that he's being a knuckleheaded numbskull, and all crackwadded about it, I don't like the guy that much any more.  My wife bought me his new book and I told her to send it back.

I'm biased.  I've had my life saved too many times by doctors to start saying stupid stuff about them.  Any class jealousy I ever had for them is long gone.  I'm a better engineer than any doctor I know.  They're better at being doctors than me.

That doesn't have to do with bootlegging but it has to do with why he's not getting universal support.  He's fine. He'll survive.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That one guy I met who allegedly used to smoke pot with Clapton back in the 70s said he was a strange guy.

It looks like he has now turned into a weird old coot.

Rumor has it he's forming a new supergroup, EC and the Superspreaders.  Kind of like the Bluesbreakers but they're sponsored by Ivermectin, good for what ails ya!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, SteveFord said:

That one guy I met who allegedly used to smoke pot with Clapton back in the 70s said he was a strange guy.

It looks like he has now turned into a weird old coot.

Rumor has it he's forming a new supergroup, EC and the Superspreaders.  Kind of like the Bluesbreakers but they're sponsored by Ivermectin, good for what ails ya!

 

 

 

Most of us are "weird old coots'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That I am not.

I held him in such high esteem as a player and then with his charitable work with that Crossroads foundation to help combat addiction.

Then again, he did go after his best friend's wife in a very public manner and he did have his drunken racist rant come to light.

To have a megaphone and come out against vaccinations during a pandemic because his tootsies bothered him for two weeks and couldn't play live and then having a law firm who has evidently gone after 1000s of people selling bootlegs for small amounts of money, well, he was good guitarist back in the day but that was a long time ago.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worshipped the guy as a kid learning to play the guitar.  In my early 40's I stumbled upon a book at the old giant Virgin Store down there at what used to be Downtown Disney.  This book was the work of a rock journalist who had sat down for a long time with Whitlock and got his recollections of forming the Dominos and making Layla.  Eric was a certified mess, we are lucky we ever got that record, and he probably hasn't gotten much less messier through his long life.  I wish I had that book back.

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rabs said:

Throughout all of this..  Has anyone found out if the deputy is still alive?  :-k

No, he isn't.  Mr. Grant Davis shot the Deputy.  One of his best records in my opinion, One In Every Crowd, has a song called Don't Blame Me.   George Terry, a fantastic guitar player I was lucky to see with Eric,  got his only writing credit on it.  Makes it all clear as mud.

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...